https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1425658

--- Comment #1 from Tom Stellard tstellar@redhat.com --- Updated SPEC URL: https://github.com/tstellar/python-lit/blob/master/python-lit.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tstellar/llvm-3.9/fedora-26-...

I updated the specs to more closely follow the python packaging guidelines.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1425658

Marcus Karlsson mk@acc.umu.se changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #2 from Marcus Karlsson mk@acc.umu.se --- Hi Tom. Looks mostly good but I found some blocking issues.

Blocking issues: - The %changelog section is empty, there should be at least an initial entry. - There are rpmlint errors regarding the changelog and also a couple of non-executable python files having hashbang lines that need to be removed.

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 115 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mk/fedora/python- lit/licensecheck.txt Note: NCSA according to setup.py and upstream svn root [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Note: License file to install is not included with the upstream source package. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Note: Changelog is missing [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-lit , python3-lit [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: Only python 2 [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-lit-0.5.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python3-lit-0.5.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python-lit-0.5.0-1.fc27.src.rpm python2-lit.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C lit test runner for Python 2 python2-lit.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag python2-lit.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lit/main.py /usr/bin/env python python2-lit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lit/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-lit.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lit/ProgressBar.py /usr/bin/env python python2-lit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lit/ProgressBar.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-lit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lit python3-lit.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C lit test runner for Python 3 python3-lit.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag python3-lit.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/lit/main.py /usr/bin/env python python3-lit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/lit/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-lit.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/lit/ProgressBar.py /usr/bin/env python python3-lit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/lit/ProgressBar.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-lit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lit python-lit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) llvm -> llama python-lit.src: E: no-changelogname-tag python-lit.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 6 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-lit.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C lit test runner for Python 3 python3-lit.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag python3-lit.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/lit/ProgressBar.py /usr/bin/env python python3-lit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/lit/ProgressBar.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-lit.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/lit/main.py /usr/bin/env python python3-lit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/lit/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-lit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lit python2-lit.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C lit test runner for Python 2 python2-lit.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag python2-lit.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lit/ProgressBar.py /usr/bin/env python python2-lit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lit/ProgressBar.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-lit.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lit/main.py /usr/bin/env python python2-lit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lit/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-lit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings.

Requires -------- python3-lit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi)

python2-lit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi)

Provides -------- python3-lit: python3-lit python3.6dist(lit) python3dist(lit)

python2-lit: python2-lit python2.7dist(lit) python2dist(lit)

Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/5b/a0/dbed2c8dfb220eb9a5a893257223cd0ff791c... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ea4251e78ebeb2e07be2feb33243d1f8931d956efc96ccc2b0846ced212b58c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ea4251e78ebeb2e07be2feb33243d1f8931d956efc96ccc2b0846ced212b58c

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n python-lit-0.5.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1425658

Marcus Karlsson mk@acc.umu.se changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Marcus Karlsson mk@acc.umu.se --- Thanks Tom, looks good now.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1425658

Tom Stellard tstellar@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2017-03-13 06:47:35